rape, pregnancy and abortion

[iffo]

Is rape gods intend or not?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... gods-will/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[frankie]

Is rape gods intend or not?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... gods-will/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, I don't believe that rape is the God of the Bible's will.Rape is a directon violation of Yahweh's commands.

A person who rapes is putting into action their own selfish desires of "power control" over another person,this is in direct opposition of the Ten Commandments,which are based on loving your fellow man as yourself.

[manfred]

Hi Iffo,

A healthy pregnancy, if left to its own devices, results in the birth of a human being.

Suppose that the cause of the pregnancy is indeed a rape.

Then we have a number of serious questions, none have an easy answer...

1) Are children the absolute property of of parents? For example, should parents be allowed to beat or kill children when they feel like it without consequences, as in ancient Rome? Or do children have rights and parents have duties?

2) What about a foetus? If left alone, it will eventually be a child. When exactly can a foetus be called effectively a child? At conception? At birth? At some other point in-between? Why at that point? Do parents have a responsibility towards a foetus?

3) What crime did the foetus commit to automatically say it can/should be killed? If the mother does not want the child, can she decide alone that it should die? Or should she consider carrying it and then give it up for adoption, as she did not want it? There is a tricky balancing act between the rights and welfare of the woman and that of the child...

The problems in this scenario are the same for all people, religious or not. They are fiendishly, hideously difficult...

Many religious conservative people see the the rights of the child and the duties of the mother more important, so you get comments like the one you quoted.

It is a VERY horrible predicament to find to be pregnant after a rape. Emotions, particularly anger and depression will be strong. A victim of rape needs a lot of care are support in a whole host of areas. How to deal with the pregnancy is just one of them, but both an important one and a difficult one. Bear in mind that the decision on that will also have to be lived with.

So, what is your take on that, Iffo...

A woman got pregnant after a rape. She feels angry, violated and dirty. She did not want to be pregnant and she certainly does not want this child, a daily reminder of her nastiest day in her life so far. She does not want to see her attacker every day in the face of a baby, HER baby... But what is the foetus guilty of to deny it its future life? Maybe that particular baby will turn out to be another mother Theresa, another Einstein, another Michelangelo....

You got talking to her and listened. What would you say to her?

[CuteCoot]

The problems in this scenario are the same for all people, religious or not. They are fiendishly, hideously difficult...

Totally agree.

[iffo]

Hi Iffo,

A healthy pregnancy, if left to its own devices, results in the birth of a human being.

Suppose that the cause of the pregnancy is indeed a rape.

Then we have a number of serious questions, none have an easy answer...

1) Are children the absolute property of of parents? For example, should parents be allowed to beat or kill children when they feel like it without consequences, as in ancient Rome? Or do children have rights and parents have duties?

2) What about a foetus? If left alone, it will eventually be a child. When exactly can a foetus be called effectively a child? At conception? At birth? At some other point in-between? Why at that point? Do parents have a responsibility towards a foetus?

3) What crime did the foetus commit to automatically say it can/should be killed? If the mother does not want the child, can she decide alone that it should die? Or should she consider carrying it and then give it up for adoption, as she did not want it? There is a tricky balancing act between the rights and welfare of the woman and that of the child...

The problems in this scenario are the same for all people, religious or not. They are fiendishly, hideously difficult...

Many religious conservative people see the the rights of the child and the duties of the mother more important, so you get comments like the one you quoted.

It is a VERY horrible predicament to find to be pregnant after a rape. Emotions, particularly anger and depression will be strong. A victim of rape needs a lot of care are support in a whole host of areas. How to deal with the pregnancy is just one of them, but both an important one and a difficult one. Bear in mind that the decision on that will also have to be lived with.

So, what is your take on that, Iffo...

A woman got pregnant after a rape. She feels angry, violated and dirty. She did not want to be pregnant and she certainly does not want this child, a daily reminder of her nastiest day in her life so far. She does not want to see her attacker every day in the face of a baby, HER baby... But what is the foetus guilty of to deny it its future life? Maybe that particular baby will turn out to be another mother Theresa, another Einstein, another Michelangelo....

You got talking to her and listened. What would you say to her?

You are right Manfred it is very difficult decision.
I was talking about how politician was confused regarding Gods Intend. Religious People whether muslims or christians etc always say god is behind everything . It is Gods intend. But when something bad happens they don't know what to say, other than giving stupid reasoning.

[manfred]

Given God the blame for things we do is a common but totally inappropriate approach to ethics. It is not very different from blaming the devil, a similar lame approach.

It is the inshallah approach to life. We don't need to try to improve our own situation, it is futile anyway, God will have to sort all it out. We are not responsible for anything, as all things are pre-planned. So I stole food in the market, well, I was hungry and God gave me the opportunity. So what is wrong with that? I raped a woman? Well I was horny and God sent her to temptingly walk passed me. Allah gave me the opportunity, so I would be insulting Allah in refusing it.... I got caught? Well, Allah is angry with me about something else, otherwise he would not allow me to get caught. It's probably because I missed Friday prayers... Anyway, he guides who he wants...

Now, what does a man mean who says that an ensuing pregnancy after a rape is "God's will"? He certainly does not try to sanction rape. He is trying, in his own way, to emphasize that the growing baby is a creature of God in its own right. It is not to be disposed of lightly.

[iffo]

Given God the blame for things we do is a common but totally inappropriate approach to ethics. It is not very different from blaming the devil, a similar lame approach.

It is the inshallah approach to life. We don't need to try to improve our own situation, it is futile anyway, God will have to sort all it out. We are not responsible for anything, as all things are pre-planned. So I stole food in the market, well, I was hungry and God gave me the opportunity. So what is wrong with that? I raped a woman? Well I was horny and God sent her to temptingly walk passed me. Allah gave me the opportunity, so I would be insulting Allah in refusing it.... I got caught? Well, Allah is angry with me about something else, otherwise he would not allow me to get caught. It's probably because I missed Friday prayers... Anyway, he guides who he wants...

Now, what does a man mean who says that an ensuing pregnancy after a rape is "God's will"? He certainly does not try to sanction rape. He is trying, in his own way, to emphasize that the growing baby is a creature of God in its own right. It is not to be disposed of lightly.

The bold part makes sense if that's what he meant.

But don't you christians believe that god is behind everything thing, that's why you win the Grammay award you say thank god. You got saved in an accident you say thank god, your cancer is cured you say thank god. Your baby is born healthy you say thank god. Someone try to kill you, but could not , you say thank god

[manfred]

This is a complex questions and Christians do not all agree. There are some minorities who have a very similar position to Muslims on this, but for the most part there is a big difference.

Christians (on the whole) believe that man has free will, and can genuine make his own decisions (even though it may be argued that an all-knowing God knows in advance what decisions will be made). To some people, this sounds confusing, but it simply means that God will know what we end up doing, but he only knows what WE will decide, he does not preordain the decision.

So God is not seen as controlling and directing all of the universe, like a puppet master would, pulling this string or that. He stays in the background to allow us to make our own decisions. Guidance is given, but the decisions are ours. We are the "stewards" of the world, and we are allowed to get it wrong if we must. That does not mean that God has no interest or never interferes.

It is not the sign of a mature faith to thank God only for good things that happen to you. ALL things should be accepted with equal gratitude, as all things have their rewards, their pain and their challenges. That is why the primary Christian prayer asks God's help so that "his will be done".

Is a handicapped baby not worth anything, or is its life worth less than the life of a healthy one? Christianity would say no, they each have their own unique value, and none can be prized higher than the other.

[Ozes]

It is God's will to give man his own free will. So since rape is an expression of free will, you can say it is the will of the Lord to allow this too happen. But this doesn't have anything to do with the moral judgement of something as hideous as rape.

[Nosuperstition]

1) Are children the absolute property of of parents? For example, should parents be allowed to beat or kill children when they feel like it without consequences, as in ancient Rome? Or do children have rights and parents have duties?

Were parents in ancient Rome allowed to beat or kill children without proper reason?If so then the Bible seems to be much more civilised as it entails killing of children by parents only when there is proper reason to do so

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.


20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Your display of the law code of isreal, i don't have to debunk. Those people lived under god as is described in the section, and he protected them and fed them, and they knew the rules.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=9384&start=80" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially the spirit of killing without proper reason is but the same.The parents feed and protect the children so they the children have to know the rules or they would get killed.Even killing with proper reason gives immense justification for honor killings as the children are sure to have verbal alterations with their parents i.e cursing of parents happens when their actions purportedly bring disgrace to the family.

[Nosuperstition]

Although their exact status of slaves varied from the founding of Rome to its eventual decline,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Several emperors began to grant more rights to slaves as the empire grew. Claudius announced that if a slave was abandoned by his master, he became free. Nero granted slaves the right to complain against their masters in a court. And under Antoninus Pius, a master who killed a slave without just cause could be tried for homicide.[50] Legal protection of slaves continued to grow as the empire expanded.[citation needed] It became common throughout the mid to late 2nd century AD to allow slaves to complain of cruel or unfair treatment by their owners.[51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... gal_status" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given that even the condition of even the slaves changed for better with time in Roman Empire , did not the condition of children turn for better with the passage of time in the Roman Empire?Was the treatment of children universally horrendous and uniform throughout the period for which the Empire lasted?

Present day Christians visualise God as a loving grandfather not much different from the images/idols of grandpa Zeus of Rome.So might be the condition of children was good even back then.

[manfred]

It was common practice in ancient Rome to place unwanted babies in isolated places to abandon them. There even was a special place for that. It was also legal for a father to kill his son or daughter if he was unhappy with their behaviour in as much as he thought they somehow "disgrace" the family, or they were "deformed" in some way. If he did so without any such excuse, though, he could be punished with loosing his rights of citizenship, or a fine, but not like a murderer... Children were, like slaves, see as property, with very few rights. If anything, slaves had a few more options. Children certainly could not complain to a court about their parents.

The practice of abandoning children was still alive, though muted, until the renaissance in Italy.... Cesare Borgia is said to have followed that tradition to get rid of a baby born out wedlock...

Also, in Rome it was considered "bad manners" to get old and infirm, so that others had to care for you. It was expected for such a person to commit suicide. The wife of Augustus did, for example. Certainly, the death of an old and infirm person would never attract many questions. Even the old emperor Tiberius died under very odd circumstances, and many assumed, even at the time, that Caligula had a hand in that, but it was simply tolerated as he was old and doddery...


Before Christianity, abortion was also commonplace, and the only know method of birth control, other than, of course, killing the baby. Afterwards, it was obviously still practiced, but less openly.

[iffo]

So the way I understand one should not thank God for anything in christanity because god is not doing anything, is it correct?

I don't know why people than say "Thanks God" . And say Jesus loves me, does Jesus love Christains?

[manfred]

So the way I understand one should not thank God for anything in christanity because god is not doing anything, is it correct?

I don't know why people than say "Thanks God" . And say Jesus loves me, does Jesus love Christains?

Did I say that? Of course people thank God for all sorts of things. I meant to say perhaps it would be better to be thankful for ALL things, even those we do not appreciate.

Does God love Christians?

Christians would say God has shown love to all mankind. ALL are loved.

[iffo]

So the way I understand one should not thank God for anything in christanity because god is not doing anything, is it correct?

I don't know why people than say "Thanks God" . And say Jesus loves me, does Jesus love Christains?

Did I say that? Of course people thank God for all sorts of things. I meant to say perhaps it would be better to be thankful for ALL things, even those we do not appreciate.

Does God love Christians?

Christians would say God has shown love to all mankind. ALL are loved.

Christians say 'Thank God' but if god does not interfere , then saying 'Thank God' makes no sense. It lead me to believe that mostly christians believe that god does interfere and should be given credit if something good happens.

How did Jesus shown love to whole mankind, how they are all loved?

[manfred]

Christians do not say that God does never do anything to "interfere" as you put it. They say that God's actions are subtle and restrained so that free will is not interfered with.

My point was this: If you want to say "thank you" to God for life, then why not also for death? If you are grateful for your health, but not for your sickness?

There is a similar idea in Buddhism: suffering come from desire. It is because we want some things and not others, we create suffering.

To Jesus Christians is the ultimate involvement of God in human life. It is the demonstration to what length God will go to convince us that we are invited to be with Him and that we have a purpose and destiny to be united with God, despite of our faults and bad actions. Jesus presents this open invitation and he dies for it. That, according to Christian doctrine, is how God's unconditional love was revealed.


Now, iffo I feel uncomfortable to get involved into these questions with you, because I really don't want to convince anyone of any belief. While I don't mind explaining Christian teachings, please do not take that as some attempt to talk you into anything. Work things out for yourself.


Now, to get back to your original question. Does God intend a rape? Perhaps I may answer that with an analogy:

People are allowed to drive cars. The governments of all countries makes rules for safety, impose compulsory training, spend a lot of money on warning signs. Still, accidents happen, because people don't follow the rules. So are all road accidents ultimately the fault of governments for allowing cars in the first place? Should all motorised traffic be outlawed to prevent road deaths?

[iffo]

Please don't feel uncomfortable I know you are not trying to convince. I just wanted to understand few things about Christianity which I think are quite similar to Islam. Like saying 'thank god' I can say thank god for health if he has intervene and given me good health but why will I say thank god for sickness? Or for giving me cancer? It will make no sense, would it.

Christianity also like Islam have the concept of paradise/hell, who will go to hell according to Christianity ?

[manfred]

Like saying 'thank god' I can say thank god for health if he has intervene and given me good health but why will I say thank god for sickness? Or for giving me cancer? It will make no sense, would it.

All things that can happen in our lives in reality have both a value to us and a challenge. I don't think it is right to be selective in being grateful for some things and not others. You may remember when the old pope John Paul II died. One of the last things he said was to say thank you to God for his sickness and imminent death, as it seemed to him that these things made people look closer at his life and work, and may bring some closer to God. If Jesus did not spurn suffering and death, maybe we also should search a little more for the good things that come through even death.

The Buddha was absolutely right when he pointed out that we only suffer because of our desire. Want nothing at all, accept all with equal happiness, and look for the value in all things.

Christianity also like Islam have the concept of paradise/hell, who will go to hell according to Christianity ?

While Christianity have concepts like paradise and hell, they are fundamentally different from Islam. First of all "paradise" is usually only used to refer to the garden of Eden of the story of Adam and Eve.

I think I have gone over that many times here... ALL are invited to join God, all mankind, not just one religion or another. In order for there to be a real invitation, it must be possible to refuse it. Hell is a place God "keeps away" from, to allow those who have finally and utterly rejected God's call to join him to get what they have chosen.

Suppose you are repeatedly asked to come to a journey. You refuse, over and over. Eventually the journey takes place without you. So you got you wish, you could stay at home. However, when you learn how exciting the journey is from people who went, you get upset.

The suffering is hell is not torture, it is caused by the realisation of what might have been.


Atheists often claim that Christians believe they will go to hell. This is not the case, at least not generally. It is not our beliefs or lack of them that determines such issues, it is who we are, and what we choose to do with your life. Beliefs don't automatically turn people into good or bad people, it is their actions that do that. With or without belief in God, people can make good and bad life choices.

[iffo]

Like saying 'thank god' I can say thank god for health if he has intervene and given me good health but why will I say thank god for sickness? Or for giving me cancer? It will make no sense, would it.

All things that can happen in our lives in reality have both a value to us and a challenge. I don't think it is right to be selective in being grateful for some things and not others. You may remember when the old pope John Paul II died. One of the last things he said was to say thank you to God for his sickness and imminent death, as it seemed to him that these things made people look closer at his life and work, and may bring some closer to God. If Jesus did not spurn suffering and death, maybe we also should search a little more for the good things that come through even death.

The Buddha was absolutely right when he pointed out that we only suffer because of our desire. Want nothing at all, accept all with equal happiness, and look for the value in all things.

Christianity also like Islam have the concept of paradise/hell, who will go to hell according to Christianity ?

While Christianity have concepts like paradise and hell, they are fundamentally different from Islam. First of all "paradise" is usually only used to refer to the garden of Eden of the story of Adam and Eve.

I think I have gone over that many times here... ALL are invited to join God, all mankind, not just one religion or another. In order for there to be a real invitation, it must be possible to refuse it. Hell is a place God "keeps away" from, to allow those who have finally and utterly rejected God's call to join him to get what they have chosen.

Suppose you are repeatedly asked to come to a journey. You refuse, over and over. Eventually the journey takes place without you. So you got you wish, you could stay at home. However, when you learn how exciting the journey is from people who went, you get upset.

The suffering is hell is not torture, it is caused by the realisation of what might have been.


Atheists often claim that Christians believe they will go to hell. This is not the case, at least not generally. It is not our beliefs or lack of them that determines such issues, it is who we are, and what we choose to do with your life. Beliefs don't automatically turn people into good or bad people, it is their actions that do that. With or without belief in God, people can make good and bad life choices.

It will be very difficult for me to thank god if my son gets cancer or I have a baby who is born mentally/physically disabled to suffer his/her whole life. Or have an earthquake in which my whole family die , or my house catch fire by lightning and my mom burned alive, and I say 'God thank you so much". It just does not work like that.

I read people will not go to hell if they are not christians and don't believe in Jesus, but people who been given the message of bible and told about Jesus and they reject it will go to hell, isn't this true?

[Monotheism]

While Christianity have concepts like paradise and hell, they are fundamentally different from Islam. First of all "paradise" is usually only used to refer to the garden of Eden of the story of Adam and Eve.

I think the "paradise" in question here is the Kingdom which sounds like hell with all the wars goi ng on there